Apollo81

1NT I think my 2 spade high cards will stop the onslaught well enough for me to come up with 7 tricks most of the time.

I think some of the 4♥ bidders (well, maybe just me) thought we could have a slam opposite an invitational 3♠, such as AKxxxxx xxx x Qx. I do see the posts you're referring to though.

That our bidding styles differ when Partner has shown a GF single-suiter in ♥? B)With no specified agreement, a Yarborough and a 4 card ♠ suit, Jdonn would bid a gutsy 3♠ :). No wonder Jdonn is such an accomplished card-player :) Without prior agreement, 4♥ seems a better candidate for a catch-all weak bid :) The point of the 3♠ bid is that sometimes partner will bid 3NT, which we can happily pass. On the OP hand we don't mind declaring 3NT since at least we have a few queens and we don't mind if the opponents lead one of those suits.

3NT Hey, it's a better bid than 1NT was.

Agree, provided I had this option. Without it, I'd bid 2♠, then 3NT. It sounds like partner would bid 4♥ over that....etc.

If I had some way to show a bad 3♣ bid I'd use it, otherwise I'd pass.

1♦, there is no reason to do anything else

wow, i guess this decision wasnt as automatic as i thought

i second that

I would bid 3♦ to put a little more pressure on. The Law of Total Tricks will support this bid the vast majority of the time.

Opener has a textbook SAYC 3♠ jump rebid, since this shows 16-18 with long spades. In 2/1, opener would have a 2♠ rebid since the 3♠ would forcefully set the trump suit (opener's spades are not THAT good). If opener makes the correct 3♠ rebid, it will be easy to get to 6♠. Getting to 7♠ will be more difficult with only the SAYC methods.

agree with 4♥; also I *really* don't think we should go past 4♠ here without cooperation from partner

(1♠)-2♠-(3♥)-p (3♠)-pa-(4♠)-all pass ♣A lead (you play A from AK and UDCA) ___Kxx ___QJ ___AQTxxx ___T9 A74 753 K97 8642 Would you play a different card if dummy had ♣Qx instead?

no

agree

normally 6(322) too strong to bid 3♠

I would normally duck the first round of clubs, win the second (if appl.), and switch to a low spade. The ♦7 on trick 1 (at least in my partnerships) further suggests that this is the right play.

BTW the fact that we could have 12-14 is very significant here, IMO. This makes it a much easier decision than if we had explicitly showed a mixed/constructive raise at our last turn.

I agree with Josh, I would not make a slam try even if I could.

I'd pass. This hand doesn't have that much playing strength, and if partner had a reasonable hand with short spades (pretty much what we need him to have for a bid) then he probably would have doubled.

Given these methods I would double. The hand just doesn't have much playing strength compared to what we could hold, and the ♦A is likely wasted opposite a void.

I like any moscito that's not biting me.

Raise to 2♠ -- IMO that is the most normal call.

I blame both players. I think North has a completely automatic 2♦ bid since he doesn't have a heart stopper. Even if North had one real heart stopper, the clubs might have to be setup in notrump, which would mean 5+ losers. Thus South should probably bid 4♣ over 3NT. Anyway North's mistake was worse -- "don't bid notrump without a stopper when you have another good option"

3NT